The Great Reset

km991148

PintOfView wrote: »

I can't say that I was entirely comfortable with Trump getting banned.

However it is the case that he was responsible for emitting large volumes of untruths,
and because of his profile and reach, these lies were making a lot of people believe stuff that simply wasn't true.

Yeah but the timing of it, when he was in lame duck mode - it was after they had milked that cash cow enough and there was no more use from him.

If they wanted to take that moral viewpoint they could have long before.

Similarly if they wanted to kick him based on political viewpoint.. went didn't they years ago??

PintOfView

Parachutes wrote: »

Two slightly different scenarios let’s be honest.

When people of a left wing political bent break the T&C’s of these websites they rarely get banned though. It’s a double standard in policing.

Objectively I don't think that's the case.

Trump was lying constantly, not espousing conservative or Christian values (in fact the opposite).

I would expect that left, right, or centre, people who lied as much as Trump would be banned in the same way.

Parachutes

PintOfView wrote: »

Objectively I don't think that's the case.

Trump was lying constantly, not espousing conservative or Christian values (in fact the opposite).

I would expect that left, right, or centre, people who lied as much as Trump would be banned in the same way.

Pretty much like every single politician then.

King Mob

Parachutes wrote: »

You’re trying to say he was not deplatformed yet he was simultaneously banned from all mainstream social media websites because,

But he was able to set up his own social media site all by himself.

Parachutes wrote: »

let’s face it, the people who run these companies are extremely socially liberal in their views and didn’t like the things he was espousing. All you have to do is look at their company policies to see this.

And had nothing to do with his lies about the election or his encouragment of those false, insane beliefs I suppose?

Pretty sure christian values aren't so hot on the old baring false witness thing...

km991148

Parachutes wrote: »

Pretty much like every single politician then.

"Sure, they are all the same".. that's how it starts. These are very dangerous words.

PintOfView

km991148 wrote: »

Yeah but the timing of it, when he was in lame duck mode - it was after they had milked that cash cow enough and there was no more use from him.

If they wanted to take that moral viewpoint they could have long before.

Similarly if they wanted to kick him based on political viewpoint.. went didn't they years ago??

I agree, what he was saying constantly, right from the beginning of his 4 years,
would have justified them banning him for lying (the crowds on day 1 for eg).

I think part of the problem is that twitter & facebook & youtube are commercial entities
that depend on eyeballs on screens for their profits, and people like Trump are actually beneficial to them.

From a society / community point of view there is a huge conflict of interest here,
where people who lie, and mislead, and misinform, can get large audiences
and the algorithms likely feed more of the same to these viewers, without any balance.

PintOfView

Parachutes wrote: »

Pretty much like every single politician then.

Yes, a lot of politicians seem to lie,
that's why opposition politics is important to counter it.

Dohnjoe

km991148 wrote: »

"Sure, they are all the same".. that's how it starts. These are very dangerous words.

Yes, false equivalence

"He's bad, but they are all like that"

It's a roundabout way of excusing someone or something

km991148

PintOfView wrote: »

I agree, what he was saying constantly, right from the beginning of his 4 years,
would have justified them banning him for lying (the crowds on day 1 for eg).

I think part of the problem is that twitter & facebook & youtube are commercial entities
that depend on eyeballs on screens for their profits, and people like Trump are actually beneficial to them.

From a society / community point of view there is a huge conflict of interest here,
where people who lie, and mislead, and misinform, can get large audiences
and the algorithms likely feed more of the same to these viewers, without any balance.

Exactly. That's why I find it funny when I hear people saying social media sites kick people for their misaligned political views. Capitalism is going to screw you harder than politics and it's pretty ignorant to think otherwise.

km991148

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yes, false equivalence

"He's bad, but they are all like that"

It's a roundabout way of excusing someone or something

It's a get out of jail free card for the worst offenders and provides cover for them.

Mic 1972

King Mob wrote: »

What conservative and Christian views was he banned for?

Since he was deplatformed, how come he was able to set up his own social media site?

Klavan is another one, and when you get de platformed you dont get any specific feedback. You just get a notification that you are in breach of company policies

Mic 1972

Parachutes wrote: »

Two slightly different scenarios let’s be honest.

When people of a left wing political bent break the T&C’s of these websites they rarely get banned though. It’s a double standard in policing.

Correct


Many examples from the BLM riots and the politicians who supported them openly and incited for more confrontational behavior from rioters
They don't get deplatformed

Timberrrrrrrr

Parachutes wrote: »

Two slightly different scenarios let’s be honest.

When people of a left wing political bent break the T&C’s of these websites they rarely get banned though. It’s a double standard in policing.

No its exactly the same, do you believe certain people should be allowed ignore the rules and break the rules (T&C's) that they agreed to when they signed up?

King Mob

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Klavan is another one,

No idea who that is.

Mic 1972 wrote: »

and when you get de platformed you dont get any specific feedback. You just get a notification that you are in breach of company policies

And again, nothing to do with all the lies? At all?

Mic 1972

King Mob wrote: »

No idea who that is.

that's why there is no need to provide examples
ether you know what we are talking about or you don't
censorship and demonetization of YT channels based on political orientation is real

Dohnjoe

Mic 1972 wrote: »

that's why there is no need to provide examples
ether you know what we are talking about or you don't
censorship and demonetization of YT channels based on political orientation is real

*In your personal opinion

Can you support your claim?

Mic 1972

Dohnjoe wrote: »

*In your personal opinion

Can you demonstrate this?

Again.
Republican or Christian channels are being demonetized for having not left-progressive conforming views. No need to bring examples if you don't know these people. Daily Wires, Epoch Times, Dave Rubin, etc... they are get demonetized on a consistent basis

King Mob

Mic 1972 wrote: »

that's why there is no need to provide examples
ether you know what we are talking about or you don't
censorship and demonetization of YT channels based on political orientation is real

Lol. So because i don't know the example you're talking about, you don't have to provide any examples to back up your claims?

That's ridiculous.

Is this also the reason you're dodging questions too?

I think the real reason you're reluctant to provide a specific example is because there isn't one.
It's probably the same as with Trump, where you're pretending that he was just an innocent good boy who is being treated unfairly, while ignoring the inexcusable stuff that actually got him banned.

I wager it's the same with the person you named.

Mic 1972

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. So because i don't know the example you're talking about, you don't have to provide any examples to back up your claims?

That's ridiculous.

Is this also the reason you're dodging questions too?

I think the real reason you're reluctant to provide a specific example is because there isn't one.
It's probably the same as with Trump, where you're pretending that he was just an innocent good boy who is being treated unfairly, while ignoring the inexcusable stuff that actually got him banned.

I wager it's the same with the person you named.

didnt i just provided a few names above? talking about being ridiculous

Dohnjoe

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Again.
Republican or Christian channels are being demonetized for having not left-progressive conforming views. No need to bring examples if you don't know these people. Daily Wires, Epoch Times, Dave Rubin, etc... they are get demonetized on a consistent basis

If that's true then how come the "left" were also impacted, e.g. Secular Times, Majority Report?

Here's a quote from Rubin: “If a bakery doesn’t want to bake cakes for gay couples, it’s the business’ right to choose how they run their business... “. So he supports it.

People on fringes love to play the victim card whenever a private platform decides to remove them or when advertisers decide not to support them. Anyway I am not sure what any of this has to do with the Great Reset, so I think we're veering off here

King Mob

Mic 1972 wrote: »

didnt i just provided a few names above? talking about being ridiculous

No, you just named more rando names, but gave no evidence or context.
At the same time you ignored the majority of my post.

So I think that demonstrates my assumptions are right.
If you want to show otherwsie, you're going to have to provide actual examples.
And you're going to have to stop ignoring points you can't address.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Anyway I am not sure what any of this has to do with the Great Reset, so I think we're veering off here

More distractions because no one actually has anything of substance to say about it.

km991148

Looking at the op, I can't wait for techno tyranny.

Should be a great gig.

silliussoddius

King Mob wrote: »

What conservative and Christian views was he banned for?

Adultery, dishonesty, pride, lust, wrath etc
I find it hilarious more people are worried about his social media access than him spreading lies.

Mic 1972

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Again.
Republican or Christian channels are being demonetized for having not left-progressive conforming views. No need to bring examples if you don't know these people. Daily Wires, Epoch Times, Dave Rubin, etc... they are get demonetized on a consistent basis

The Epoch Times famed for pushing conspiracy theories including that of qanon, famously got banned from Facebook for running multiple sock puppet accounts. The daily wire similarly caught out for sock puppet accounts to increase its profile... Dave Rubin who platforms white supremacists and likes, he doesn't appear to be banned from Facebook, Twitter or YouTube though... He has had certain episodes that don't get money from YouTube due to the fact that the platform doesn't wish to be seen to be promoting white supremacists etc. So two of your examples were trying to make themselves seem more popular than they were. One simply doesn't get money when he platforms people who seem like Hitler fans...

Mic 1972

Deleted User wrote: »

The Epoch Times famed for pushing conspiracy theories including that of qanon, famously got banned from Facebook for running multiple sock puppet accounts. The daily wire similarly caught out for sock puppet accounts to increase its profile... Dave Rubin who platforms white supremacists and likes, he doesn't appear to be banned from Facebook, Twitter or YouTube though... He has had certain episodes that don't get money from YouTube due to the fact that the platform doesn't wish to be seen to be promoting white supremacists etc. So two of your examples were trying to make themselves seem more popular than they were. One simply doesn't get money when he platforms people who seem like Hitler fans...

all of which debunked
they are doing counter information about China, Covid, Cancel Culture, etc

All your favourite "conspiracies"

King Mob

Deleted User wrote: »

He has had certain episodes that don't get money from YouTube due to the fact that the platform doesn't wish to be seen to be promoting white supremacists etc. So two of your examples were trying to make themselves seem more popular than they were. One simply doesn't get money when he platforms people who seem like Hitler fans...

Those might be the "Christian values" I imagine.

Mic 1972

King Mob wrote: »

No, you just named more rando names, but gave no evidence or context.
At the same time you ignored the majority of my post.

So I think that demonstrates my assumptions are right.
If you want to show otherwsie, you're going to have to provide actual examples.
And you're going to have to stop ignoring points you can't address.

do your homework then, instead of repeating your own quotes.
Plenty of evidence about cancel culture. I aint got the time to pull up names for you

King Mob

Mic 1972 wrote: »

do your homework then, instead of repeating your own quotes.
Plenty of evidence about cancel culture. I aint got the time to pull up names for you

No, you can't produce any evidence because what your claiming isn't true

If it were true and you had evidence, you'd be dumping it constantly.
But you aren't. You keep dodging and avoiding.

This is very obvious to everyone. No one is going to buy this tactic of yours.

Likewise, the fact you are completely ignoring and avoiding points about how Trump was lying about the election shows that you know that stuff is indefensible and you realise that disproves your silly claim that he was banned for his "Christian beliefs".
Why else do you keep pretending those points haven't been brought up?

silliussoddius

Mic 1972 wrote: »

do your homework then, instead of repeating your own quotes.
Plenty of evidence about cancel culture. I aint got the time to pull up names for you

Like The Dixie Chicks, French Fries etc.
Promoted by who would later become Trumpists